The Physicality Myth

For so long now here and on old 606 people have made the excuse of the physicality of tennis now for blunting Roger Federer's challenge in tournaments. Well I don't believe it really is such a big factor (if at all) as some would have you believe. Sure the players are far more physically fit now and so far better equipped to deal with long drawn out. rallies which players become conditioned to in any case.

Last night we saw Roger Federer beat Rafael Nadal and winning 20+ shots long rallies against Nadal with no sign of wilting or this mythological physicality factor kicking in. Why not? As sure as eggs are eggs it should have played out here especially if you consider the longer matches Roger has had here and far more hectic schedule of late compared to Rafael Nadal who must have felt as fresh as a daisy after more than a month out.

Another thing that bothers me about this physicality factor is this. We all know that David Ferrer is much in the Nadal mould who will stick in a rally like a human limpet and loves the long-drawn out rallies. It means to beat him you need the same physicality that you do to beat Rafael Nadal. Well then why is it that Roger Federer has played Ferrer TWELVE times and is yet to be beaten by the Spaniard? Likewise Andy Murray isn't adverse to playing long-drawn out rallies yet Roger Federer has had the upper hand in the major matches they have played in. Similarly, Novak Djokovic plays war of attrition matches but guess what? Roger Federer has won more matches than he has lost against the Serb. Once again what happened to this mythological physicality factor?

And all this on surface speeds not to Federer's liking either. Seems to be doing very well on the surfaces at the moment.

Funnily enough, Fed has played some long matches, twice coming from behind, during a week when in his own words he has not felt great. Maybe, like Andy M in the French last year, a little discomfort aids concentration and determination.
Another interesting factor was the wind. I thought it was the perceived view that Fed doesn't like wind and that Rafa does. Yet, Rafa in his post-match interviews said the wind prevented him from playing his normal game.

Caladonian Craig

I love the title!

It's for real.

The possibility you're overlooking is that Nadal is finally showing signs of his long wearing career.

Oh, and on Ferrer the answer is that he just plays him off the park with skill. You don't need to outlast Ferrer when you're Federer. You really should know that by now Craig.

Well BB Fed beat nadal 6-3 6-0 in WTF but Nadal managed to take revenge in the AO.

And if it's all about fitness then why can't Fed hit Nadal of the park like he does to Ferrer all the time, instead of 10 out of 28.

The left handed high bouncing forehand to the ad court. It really is just as simple as that. Oh, plus they generally play on clay.

He tried to play on it yesterday but Fed had a very good backhand day, plus as I say I suspect Nadal is starting to travel down the hill; it happens to them all one day and Nalbandian pushed him hard on Frday.

Ljubicic beat Nadal in Indian Wells Semi 2010 he should have retired then.

You could see how much the wind bothered Nadal last night, with him often 'topping' the ball. You could see the exasperated look on his face. Despite his detractors on here, Nadal's game does rely on great timing (especially his SSC based FH which relies on amazing timing, people should try to hit FHs like he and Fed do...the best proponents of SSC tennis in the game by far...it's why they have 26 slams between them). I don't believe Nadal is going downhill, I actually think his game is in transition to being more aggressive but he's not there yet...anyone notice how often he was hitting at or inside the baseline last night?

Nalbandian also won a set and pushed Nadal hard in IW 2010

bogbrush wrote:It's for real.

The possibility you're overlooking is that Nadal is finally showing signs of his long wearing career.

Oh, and on Ferrer the answer is that he just plays him off the park with skill. You don't need to outlast Ferrer when you're Federer. You really should know that by now Craig.

So pray tell why he doesn't play Nadal off the park (as you put it) with skill? Both play a very similar baseline based game so if Federer can comfortably beat Ferrer (on of the most durable players on the circuit) then why can't he do it with Nadal? The real answer is that Rafael Nadal is in a different class skill-wise and is why Federer has had his struggles and naff all to do with physicality otherwise how come Roger won so relatively comfortably last night and whats more on a surface that people claim is more to the liking pace-wise of Rafa than Roger.

CaledonianCraig wrote:
So pray tell why he doesn't play Nadal off the park (as you put it) with skill? Both play a very similar baseline based game so if Federer can comfortably beat Ferrer (on of the most durable players on the circuit) then why can't he do it with Nadal?

Do you really understand tennis CC? You want to say both Ferrer and Nadal play the similar baseline based game. You really think this??? Do you think all players who play primarily baseline game play similar?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:
So pray tell why he doesn't play Nadal off the park (as you put it) with skill? Both play a very similar baseline based game so if Federer can comfortably beat Ferrer (on of the most durable players on the circuit) then why can't he do it with Nadal?

Do you really understand tennis CC? You want to say both Ferrer and Nadal play the similar baseline based game. You really think this??? Do you think all players who play primarily baseline game play similar?

LOL! And CC tries to prove something in his OP while proving he simply doesn't understand the differences between a Ferrer and a Federer. I guess both names have F, Es and Rs so must have similar games, according to him.

And rotla can you ever indulge in a thread without resorting to insults?

However, people want to make it out to be Ferrer's game is based on endurance and long baseline rallies which Federer has no problems whatsoever dealing with. Hence a 100% record against him. Why? I mean if Federer really has any sort of physical frailty in long enduring rallies then surely Ferrer could have mustered at least one win against him. Why no physicality factor last night eh? Federer has had the more arduous last few weeks whilst Nadal has had his feet up so surely the pkysicality factor should have been even greater last night but wasn't. Why?

Why also does Federer have more wins than losses against another player renowned for his physical-type game ....Novak Djokovic? The physical factor is a myth in my opinion or a veil to mask other reasons for tennis results over the last two or three years.

Amazing how you can compare Ferrer and Nadal but not take Rogers match up issue with Nadal into consideration
Last nights match Federer tried to keep every rally as a short as possible and went for winners almost every shot.There were hardly the long rallies youre saying there was
I never believed the surfaces were really effecting Roger,before all the changes he was incredible dominant on all surfaces,fast and slow

CaledonianCraig wrote:And rotla can you ever indulge in a thread without resorting to insults?

However, people want to make it out to be Ferrer's game is based on endurance and long baseline rallies which Federer has no problems whatsoever dealing with. Hence a 100% record against him. Why? I mean if Federer really has any sort of physical frailty in long enduring rallies then surely Ferrer could have mustered at least one win against him. Why no physicality factor last night eh? Federer has had the more arduous last few weeks whilst Nadal has had his feet up so surely the pkysicality factor should have been even greater last night but wasn't. Why?

Why also does Federer have more wins than losses against another player renowned for his physical-type game ....Novak Djokovic? The physical factor is a myth in my opinion or a veil to mask other reasons for tennis results over the last two or three years.

1. Ferrer is nothing like Nadal in style. Zero. Don't go there.
2. Djokovic plays differently with Federer to howhe does with Nadal. He cannot play short balls with Fed, he has to be more aggressive and to his great credit he does it very well.

bogbrush so are you saying that Ferrer doesn't play a physical-type game with long lung-busting rallies? If not you must see a different Ferrer.

As for Djokovic yes I would agree with you on that point but in that case how would you account for Roger not succumbing last night to the physicality factor? Perhaps because it doesn't exist and is all in the mind of some and got in the mind of Federer during a time when he wasn't mentally as confident as he seems now.

Veejay there was a 20+ long SHOTS rally towards the end of the match when surely the physicality factor would have been kicking in but who won the rally? Federer.

I'm saying David doesn't get to extend his matches with Federer because he can't stop Roger just whacking him around the place. He doesnt have the high bouncer to the SHBH. That's all there is to it.

CaledonianCraig wrote:bogbrush so are you saying that Ferrer doesn't play a physical-type game with long lung-busting rallies? If not you must see a different Ferrer.

As for Djokovic yes I would agree with you on that point but in that case how would you account for Roger not succumbing last night to the physicality factor? Perhaps because it doesn't exist and is all in the mind of some and got in the mind of Federer during a time when he wasn't mentally as confident as he seems now.

Veejay there was a 20+ long SHOTS rally towards the end of the match when surely the physicality factor would have been kicking in but who won the rally? Federer.

But thats not always the case,so I don't see whats your point.Roger is always more prone to lose long rallies against Nadal,you cant suddenly those 2 or 3 long rallies and then use try to prove a point
He didn't win the match on long rallies,he won it by keeping the rallies as short as possible and earning cheap points and making is his service game less vulnerable with his serve
The only reason why the match took such a turn was because Roger got a little tight trying to close the match out and went back into the mode of how he always plays Nadal.If that had kept up he would have lost the match,so your point would then have been null and void

My point is that this physicality factor is a myth. I would put much more weight behind the argument that Federer's defeats against Nadal were matches he has lost when he was not as mentally strong or had as much self-belief in his game as he has at the moment and you could couple that up with a little less self-belief from Rafa as well since he isn't in the same form of late and that must be taking its toll as well.

As I had mentioned elsewhere Nadal was playing two tournaments in one week - Doubles and Singles, nine matches in 6 days? For someone returning from a 6 weeks break - that seemed a little bit silly. I wouldn't have predicted a Nadal win for the tournament if I had known about that doubles schedule.

Isner himself has managed to reach both singles and doubles finals but he never had a 6 week break, was match fit and tends to keep the match length down.

Anyone reading tea leaves into yesterday's match is going to get the future wrong for various reasons. I can understand the opprobrium on here after a Fed win over Nadal, given its such a rarity, but this will change nothing in slams when they meet, whatever surface they meet on.

Agree NS, which points to Nadal not taking this event too seriously, he's won it before...nothing to prove and bigger fish to fry in the weeks ahead. He's still rusty but I was encouraged to see him start the match aggressively before the wind knocked his timing off which was probably a bit brittle after a 6 week layoff.

The double is not very relevant. It takes very little out of them. You have Paes being 40 soon playing in it week in week out so for Nadal it's actually good practice....WHat really tired him is that 1/4F v Nalbandian. It was played at a fast pace and it showed he was tired last night.

lydian wrote:Anyone reading tea leaves into yesterday's match is going to get the future wrong for various reasons. I can understand the opprobrium on here after a Fed win over Nadal, given its such a rarity, but this will change nothing in slams when they meet, whatever surface they meet on.

1/3 across allsurfaces

50% roughly outside clay.

A rarity?

In the last 5 tennis seasons it's 10-4 to Nadal.
Federer hasn't beaten him more than once in a season since 2007 and didn't beat him at all in 2008. It's a fair rarity these days.
Why bother applying percentages to a low score base....?

CaledonianCraig wrote:My point is that this physicality factor is a myth. I would put much more weight behind the argument that Federer's defeats against Nadal were matches he has lost when he was not as mentally strong or had as much self-belief in his game as he has at the moment and you could couple that up with a little less self-belief from Rafa as well since he isn't in the same form of late and that must be taking its toll as well.

I agree with that,Roger is one of the fittest players on tour with incredible stamina.He does look mentally fried sometimes,but physically seems to be able to hang with Nadal or Djokovic without any problem
He loses to Nadal more because of the way he plays Nadal,all Nadal usually has to do give Roger enough rope to hang himself with and that exactly what he does

bogbrush wrote:I'm saying David doesn't get to extend his matches with Federer because he can't stop Roger just whacking him around the place. He doesnt have the high bouncer to the SHBH. That's all there is to it.

Ans so what has the high bouncer to the SHBH got to do with physicality factor then? It is a valid tennis shot that Federer has never really worked out how to play but has nothing to do with physicality. I say Federer's losses against Nadal were lost in the mind and nothing to do with physicality.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I'm saying David doesn't get to extend his matches with Federer because he can't stop Roger just whacking him around the place. He doesnt have the high bouncer to the SHBH. That's all there is to it.

Ans so what has the high bouncer to the SHBH got to do with physicality factor then? It is a valid tennis shot that Federer has never really worked out how to play but has nothing to do with physicality. I say Federer's losses against Nadal were lost in the mind and nothing to do with physicality.

We have been through that road a thousand times.It gets dragging to keep telling again and again. If you can't see the difference between a Ferrer and a Nadal, just because they both play primarily baseline, explaining it all over will just be a wasted breath.

It has nothing to do with a physicality factor and rotla David Ferrer isn't all there is to the argument in any case. Players that play a physically draining game in tennis have all got either a poor record or a record that is on a par with Federer at best barring Rafael Nadal. Call it a mentality factor and I'd agree there. Roger Federer has proved he can beat Rafa more than enough times to blitz this physicality myth out of the water. Where was this factor yesterday. After all Federer had played a number of long matches and back-to-back tournaments over the last month whilst Rafa has had his feet up so coming to Indian Wells he was as fresh as a daisy so the physicality factor should have been even more prominent but we never saw it. Why? I say it is because Federer (mentally) came into this match in a far better place and with far more self belief whilst the reverse could be said of Nadal. Mentally stronger Federer (on the back of several tournament wins in the last few months) against a Nadal weaker mentally (on the back of a fair few months without success at tournaments) and that is why we got the result we did coupled with Federer's superior play of course. Does this now mean that Federer has turned the corner against Nadal? Time will tell.

CaledonianCraig wrote:My point is that this physicality factor is a myth. I would put much more weight behind the argument that Federer's defeats against Nadal were matches he has lost when he was not as mentally strong or had as much self-belief in his game as he has at the moment and you could couple that up with a little less self-belief from Rafa as well since he isn't in the same form of late and that must be taking its toll as well.

Excellent post by the OP, can not agree more. The interesting thing about the Roger gets tired and that is why he loses myth is that Federer only gets tired when he loses, at least according to his fans. He didn't get tired 07 wimbledon in a gruelling 5 set match against Nadal that he won, or in the tough 4 setter they played in 06 wimby. Here is how you can tell if fed got tired, look at the score if Federer lost the match, well then he got tired.

In fact, Roger Federer probably loses less matches to exhaustion than anyone on tour. He is very fit, plays more short points, and gets mountains of free points off of his serve. Novak has lost way more matches in his career due to fitness issues than Federer. I have never seen the guy call a trainer because he is cramping, never seen him vomit on the court or clutch his side like Pete. Never seen him collapse like Baghdatis. Even when federer is misfiring he hits a lot of errors and again plays shorter points.

But a certain segment of his fans have to claim fed gets tired because this is a corollary to the other part of their argument. Fed only loses when gets tired, and he only gets tired because of unfairly slowed conditions. Therefore, fed only loses because of unfairly slowed conditions. That is the real logical leap that they are trying to get people to make.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I'm saying David doesn't get to extend his matches with Federer because he can't stop Roger just whacking him around the place. He doesnt have the high bouncer to the SHBH. That's all there is to it.

Ans so what has the high bouncer to the SHBH got to do with physicality factor then? It is a valid tennis shot that Federer has never really worked out how to play but has nothing to do with physicality. I say Federer's losses against Nadal were lost in the mind and nothing to do with physicality.

Surely you don't really believe that?

the high bouncer is a key element in the running game because it forces him backwards and into the land of running, and because it is itself a wearing shot (getting power high on he BH is hard, witness the difficulty everyone has with a BH smash).

Mm, OK. Well my believe is that physical, mental strength and talent all play an important role, with physical being probably the least important, at least slightly so.

Having said that:

1. The rallies last night were not that long as what people say.
2. Federer did see a big performance drop at 3-1 in the second set, but was able to stagger over the winning line before Rafa caught him.
3. On Ferrer, Federer has so much more weapons and talent that the physical edge cannot bridge the cap. Nadal is a better player so he can bridge that smaller talent/weapons gap to Federer with physical stamina or mental strength. (I saw Federer vs Ferrer at the O2 last year. Their serves were light years apart. In serve terms it was like Sampras vs a woman.)

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I'm saying David doesn't get to extend his matches with Federer because he can't stop Roger just whacking him around the place. He doesnt have the high bouncer to the SHBH. That's all there is to it.

Ans so what has the high bouncer to the SHBH got to do with physicality factor then? It is a valid tennis shot that Federer has never really worked out how to play but has nothing to do with physicality. I say Federer's losses against Nadal were lost in the mind and nothing to do with physicality.

Surely you don't really believe that?

the high bouncer is a key element in the running game because it forces him backwards and into the land of running, and because it is itself a wearing shot (getting power high on he BH is hard, witness the difficulty everyone has with a BH smash).

bogbrush Nadal plays a shot that Federer struggles to deal with but I'd hardly call that a whole physicality issue - that is grasping at straws the size of redwood trees. If I had a weapon in tennis or any sport that my rival struggled to handle of course I'd persevere with it as would any tennis player in the world. I really do feel there is more to it than just that one shot causing so much bother. Otherwise if it was then how come Roger has won so many matches against Rafael Nadal. Federer's demons were in his mind over Nadal and a string of painful defeats but that win last night may have helped him to break the shackles but who knows.

Henman Bill wrote:I saw Federer vs Ferrer at the O2 last year. Their serves were light years apart. In serve terms it was like Sampras vs a woman.

Sampras serves like Federer and a woman serves like Ferrer. What woman would that be?

Well CC 6-3 6-0 at WTF would have helped him break the shackles, but Grand Slams are different.

amritia3ee wrote:Well CC 6-3 6-0 at WTF would have helped him break the shackles, but Grand Slams are different.

Yes I realise that amrit and we'll see if Federer can repeat his recent success when it matters most - at slams. Certainly, mentally he is now far better placed to deliver whilst Rafa needs to raise his levels and self belief which has been punctured a bit of late I'd say.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I'm saying David doesn't get to extend his matches with Federer because he can't stop Roger just whacking him around the place. He doesnt have the high bouncer to the SHBH. That's all there is to it.

Ans so what has the high bouncer to the SHBH got to do with physicality factor then? It is a valid tennis shot that Federer has never really worked out how to play but has nothing to do with physicality. I say Federer's losses against Nadal were lost in the mind and nothing to do with physicality.

Surely you don't really believe that?

the high bouncer is a key element in the running game because it forces him backwards and into the land of running, and because it is itself a wearing shot (getting power high on he BH is hard, witness the difficulty everyone has with a BH smash).

bogbrush Nadal plays a shot that Federer struggles to deal with but I'd hardly call that a whole physicality issue - that is grasping at straws the size of redwood trees. If I had a weapon in tennis or any sport that my rival struggled to handle of course I'd persevere with it as would any tennis player in the world. I really do feel there is more to it than just that one shot causing so much bother. Otherwise if it was then how come Roger has won so many matches against Rafael Nadal. Federer's demons were in his mind over Nadal and a string of painful defeats but that win last night may have helped him to break the shackles but who knows.

I don't dispute him using the tactic but it is what I say it is. I told you why it is a huge factor in a physical challenge but if you can't see that then fine.

Think your straw analogy isn't right - wouldn't a small straw make more sense that a big one. To be fair to Ferrer, he probably serves as good as any of the women. Even pre-2011 Djokovic. Or Murray.

His serve looks weak compared to Fed but same true for many.

And if Federer is not up to a physical challenge that a certain shot brings then that is his fault and nobody else is it not?

I still say that the physicality is a myth as a reason for Nadal having a winning streak against Federer. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that in the last few months Federer's head-to-head with Nadal has improved and in that time Federer has been the form player on the tennis circuit whilst Nadal's form (and with it self belief) has taken blows. Federer mentally is very strong just now and Nadal less so. That self belief Federer has now got back helps him play Nadal with far more confidence and better tactics hence the recent results. Nothing to do with a physicality factor in my opinion.

Also represents that Roger finally gave in got a really qualified full time coach to help him work on new tactics and a new strategic mix against Nadal. Shorter balls and put the slice backhand away on the return. Not to mention go up the line quicker when Nadal keeps peppering your backhand with cross court forehands. I agree though Craig, definetly Roger is feeling more comfortable and confident and has been winning a great deal. That certainly, plays a huge role in tennis which is one of the most mental of sports.

lydian wrote:In the last 5 tennis seasons it's 10-4 to Nadal.
Federer hasn't beaten him more than once in a season since 2007 and didn't beat him at all in 2008. It's a fair rarity these days.
Why bother applying percentages to a low score base....?

That's cause in 2008 he was not at his best...though I am sure you might argue against that. He lost tons of matches in 2008 versus Nadal and everybody else.

Henman Bill wrote:Mm, OK. Well my believe is that physical, mental strength and talent all play an important role, with physical being probably the least important, at least slightly so.

I am sure you know who won the last 8 slams? ...and the way they were won! Do you really think physique is the least important factor????!!!

I am not sure what is CC point. He is probably to make us believe that mind and talent is what really gets you to the top....strangely when all top players only talk about getting stronger and fitter. Who shoudl we listen to? CC or them?

Tenez wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:Mm, OK. Well my believe is that physical, mental strength and talent all play an important role, with physical being probably the least important, at least slightly so.

I am sure you know who won the last 8 slams? ...and the way they were won! Do you really think physique is the least important factor????!!!

I am not sure what is CC point. He is probably to make us believe that mind and talent is what really gets you to the top....strangely when all top players only talk about getting stronger and fitter. Who shoudl we listen to? CC or them?

Sportsmen (at least the good,dedicated ones) are always striving to get stronger and fitter. As for mind and talent it is a massive part of what it takes to be a contender in tennis but you don;t seem to recognise that fact which is really pretty pathetic.

On fast surfaces with short points, yes, mind and talent play a great role, a much greater role. On slower ones, it's completely reverse, to the point that talent and mind becomes irrelevant cause once you have run a few hundred meters in succession, the talent and the mind simply go.

You shoudl know those basics by now.

Well in your blinkered world that may be the case but real unbiased tennis fans know differently. I suggest watching an array of shots Novak played yesterday against Isner and still lost and defy you to tell me there was no talent in those shots.

Of course the Tennis players all going to talk about getting fitter. That is the one thing they control. They can't come out and say I want to grow six inches so I can serve like Isner. And they aren't going to say well I have a crap backhand that I need to get better either. Which pro athletes in sports don't talk about getting fitter.

Craig don't defy tenez to stick to his contrafactual arguments, he will. Of course all your fine points are going to fall on deaf ears. Here is the formula, when Roger wins he isn't tired, when loses he is always tired.

socal1976 wrote: Here is the formula, when Roger wins he isn't tired, when loses he is always tired.

You're finally starting to get the hang of it.

It's odd, because for ages he had Rafa fans saying he only lost when ill/injured/tired. Was that on 606v1 or here - it's all a blur. Now Fed. I wish I could say at least such arguments make things interesting - but I can't.

Can you provide any quotes?
I certainly haven't said that.

It was more or less de rigour on 606v1. That's why I sad the other day that had he lost to Slim Dave we'd have heard of another. Honest, it was like a Pavlovian response.

It was probably on 606v1 when Rafa was No.1 in the world. It happened quite a bit. It's Raonic, er, I mean ironic, that it's come full circle to Fed on v2.